Read More

Mrs Patterson said: “I thought I’d put in a good appeal. I took photos of all the houses that have fences down to the wall on Cambridge Road. Their argument was that our fence was different because it was stopping an open view.

“I wasn’t very happy about it to be honest.

“I’ve had to take it down and put bushes in - it’s all extra cost.

“I accept that I should have put an application in first.

“To be honest, I didn’t realise I would have to, but it’s a conservation area.

“The thing is, you can grow your bushes as high as you like. So it’s silly really.”

The house on Cambridge Road before the fence was erected (Image: Teesside Live)

The committee heard that an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State had agreed the fence was completely out of step with the conservation area of Linthorpe.

Speaking at the Middlesbrough Town Hall meeting, a planning officer said: “The characteristics of the conservation area include low walls, hedges - there’s a softer approach to it.

“I understand that, as part of the appeal, the applicants have said they would put a dark stain on it and lower the height closest to the road.

“Officers also got the view of the council’s own conservation officers.

“And the conservation officer went through, and laid out, what the characteristics of the Linthorpe conservation area. They raised concerns that the height and permeability of the fence are harmful.

“It’s a close boarded fence which is, certainly in a front garden, a low quality boundary treatment - in this area security should really be achieved by hedge which is softer.

“Generally front gardens aren’t for screening views - it’s more of an open aspect.”

Read More

He continued: “In the opinion of the local planning authority, the fence that was rejected by virtue of its height, location and projection and materials - so everything about it.

And, reading from the appeal decision, he added: “It is completely alien to this particular part of the conservation area and highly prominent in the approach from both directions along Cambridge Road.”

The recommendation was approved to refuse planning permission and enforce the removal of the fence.

In his report to the committee, the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, said: “It is for the council to commence enforcement proceedings on receipt of my decision if the appellant does not voluntarily remove the fence and at that point set a timescale for its removal.”